Retaining wall - neighb wants it better than original.

Jeepers_Creepers

Only the two I'd be holding up at the time.

davilown

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Only the two I'd be holding up at the time.

Reduce the risk - one finger works as well 😁

Norman_Castle

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Apparently the problem neighbour cited her builder who said (well, duh...) "A proper block wall is the best way to do it..." and that was enough. The nice neighb's solicitor must have been utter carp.

A proper wall presumably would be better as it wouldn't need replacing in the near future. I wouldn't render or paint it though and doubt there's any obligation to do so.

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Apparently the problem neighbour cited her builder who said (well, duh...) "A proper block wall is the best way to do it..." and that was enough. The nice neighb's solicitor must have been utter carp.

Was the nice neighbour given a written judgement, or is one expected?

The reason for that is in the shock of losing what you thought was likely a dead cert, it is easy to think you've lost completely and the judge has totally agreed with the other side.  Then you get the written judgement (or order) and see the decision is a bit more nuanced.

I agree with others that it is completely reasonable for a court to find that the replacement wall has to be better than the one which failed, partly so the problem neighbour can enjoy their garden without fear that the wall will collapse again, but also so they won't have to go through the whole legal process the next time (courts also hate having their time wasted, so judgements tend towards solutions that work permanently, even at the risk of overkill). 

But it doesn't seem reasonable for the court to order that the wall is constructed with concrete blocks, rendered, and painted in the colour choice of the claimant.  Hence the question whether that is what a written judgement actually says.

Regardless of having to incur the costs of the render and paint, a judgement in those terms also precludes the nice neighbour from having the wall constructed from poured/reinforced concrete - either of which could be more durable (and possibly cheaper) than a block wall.

I'd suspect there is a chance that an appeal would find that particular part of the decision to be unsound, not least if it was made without any input from an expert witness.  The 'builder' (who presumably didn't give evidence in person) would need to have some qualification relevant to retaining wall design for them to be regarded as an 'expert' in this case.

On the other hand, it is a great demonstration of something I might have mentioned before on the forum.... that litigation is risky and even when you think you have a 100% dead cert case you still need to be lucky because it all comes down to the judge on the day and whether they agree with you.

Is the nice neighbour thinking of appealing?

Section62

Norman_Castle said:

A proper wall presumably would be better as it wouldn't need replacing in the near future. I wouldn't render or paint it though and doubt there's any obligation to do so.

If the court has ordered that then it would be either brave or foolish not to do it now though.....  before going to court it would have been Ok.

NSG666

Wow just read the original post - perhaps my neighbour firing up his bar-b-que or outdoor fire pit every time we have the washing out or the windows open isn't that bad after all.

another_casualty

Mmm...throwing stones at neighbours cats ...
If I had a cat and she did that to mine , she would be getting more than stones .
On a tangent , might be an idea for someone to name and shame her on Fitter etc or at least get it spread in the neighbourhood . 

Sorry , not much help otherwise but hope you get a satisfactory outcome 😼

Skiddaw1

another_casualty said:

Mmm...throwing stones at neighbours cats ...
If I had a cat and she did that to mine , she would be getting more than stones .
On a tangent , might be an idea for someone to name and shame her on Fitter etc or at least get it spread in the neighbourhood . 

Sorry , not much help otherwise but hope you get a satisfactory outcome 😼

I quite agree on all counts. 

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Apparently the problem neighbour cited her builder who said (well, duh...) "A proper block wall is the best way to do it..." and that was enough. The nice neighb's solicitor must have been utter carp.

Was the nice neighbour given a written judgement, or is one expected?

The reason for that is in the shock of losing what you thought was likely a dead cert, it is easy to think you've lost completely and the judge has totally agreed with the other side.  Then you get the written judgement (or order) and see the decision is a bit more nuanced.

I agree with others that it is completely reasonable for a court to find that the replacement wall has to be better than the one which failed, partly so the problem neighbour can enjoy their garden without fear that the wall will collapse again, but also so they won't have to go through the whole legal process the next time (courts also hate having their time wasted, so judgements tend towards solutions that work permanently, even at the risk of overkill). 

But it doesn't seem reasonable for the court to order that the wall is constructed with concrete blocks, rendered, and painted in the colour choice of the claimant.  Hence the question whether that is what a written judgement actually says.

Regardless of having to incur the costs of the render and paint, a judgement in those terms also precludes the nice neighbour from having the wall constructed from poured/reinforced concrete - either of which could be more durable (and possibly cheaper) than a block wall.

I'd suspect there is a chance that an appeal would find that particular part of the decision to be unsound, not least if it was made without any input from an expert witness.  The 'builder' (who presumably didn't give evidence in person) would need to have some qualification relevant to retaining wall design for them to be regarded as an 'expert' in this case.

On the other hand, it is a great demonstration of something I might have mentioned before on the forum.... that litigation is risky and even when you think you have a 100% dead cert case you still need to be lucky because it all comes down to the judge on the day and whether they agree with you.

Is the nice neighbour thinking of appealing?

Thanks S62, and good points - which I cannot answer as I don't know. I'll try and find out - it's very interesting :-)

I can't help thinking there was some simple step missed by the 'nice' neighb at some point. The nice neighb was totally ok from the outset to repair the wall as it originally was, and make good any damage to the garden including the 'flowerbed' that ran along that side (which, theoretically, she didn't have to as the failing wall was not anticipated). But whether this was put across in a clear and provable manner, I don't know. Quite possibly she did so verbally, and this was immediately countered with some crazy stuff.

Surely, if she could show that she'd made it evidentially clear - "I will, of course, repair the wall to its original condition, and make good any damage caused to your garden - please let me know when my builder can do this." then there would have been no case to answer?

The 'disturbed' neighb (and she sadly is) is seemingly capable of saying and claiming anything.

I will update the thread if anything develops :-)

Jeepers_Creepers

Norman_Castle said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Apparently the problem neighbour cited her builder who said (well, duh...) "A proper block wall is the best way to do it..." and that was enough. The nice neighb's solicitor must have been utter carp.

A proper wall presumably would be better as it wouldn't need replacing in the near future. I wouldn't render or paint it though and doubt there's any obligation to do so.

Fair point. But an obligation to make it significantly better than original? Surely the only 'fair' outcome would be 'Either replace the wall to at least original standard, or contribute that cost towards the neighb's request for betterment.'?

Summat like that?

Just take this to its logical conclusion - "I don't want timber fenceposts - I want concrete with recycled plastic panels and trellis on top. Yes, I know this'll be 4 times the cost, but..."

(Yeah yeah - you are now going to tell me there's no obligation to fix fences... :-)  )